- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:51:02 -0400
- To: "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the October 22 voice conference are available at
<http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-minutes.html> and copied below.
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-pointer-events mail list before October 29. In the
absence of any changes, these minutes will be considered approved.
-Thanks, ArtB
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Pointer Events WG Voice Conference
22 Oct 2013
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0014.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-irc
Attendees
Present
Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Rick_Byers, Scott_Gonzαlez,
Asir_Vedamuthu, Matt_Brubeck, Olli_Pettay
Regrets
Doug_Schepers, Jacob_Rossi
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Tweak agenda
2. [6]CR implementation updates
3. [7]Review status of PR-324
4. [8]maxTouchPoints on platforms that have less granular
information
5. [9]Apparent inconsistency between W3C Pointer Event
spec and EMMA 1.1 spec;
6. [10]AoB
* [11]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<smaug> uhuh
<smaug> totally missed the fact that we have call
Tweak agenda
AB: I posted a draft agenda yesterday
[12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013OctDec/0014.html.
... since then, Sanghwan posted "Compatibility Events"
[13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013OctDec/0018.html. Given this is a bit late for today's
meeting, perhaps we should discuss this on the list and not add
it to today's agenda.
... any objections to that?
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0014.html.
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0018.html.
[ None ]
AB: so please followup Sangwhan's email on the list
... any change requests for agenda?
RB: re Vivek's comment, I replied and don't think we need to
discuss it
AV: I agree
AB: any objections to deleting that proposed agenda topic?
[ None ]
CR implementation updates
AB: any new information re implementations?
OP: no updates from me
RB: nothing new to talk about; still active
AV: do you want to talk about maxTouchPoints?
RB: we have a patch for Navigator.maxTouchPoints
good to get this
added to Blink
the patch came from MS Open Tech
AV: you are still working on touch-action?
RB: yes
and some polyfill work needs to be done
We are actively moving it forward
Can't give a specific `done date`
SG: update re Polymer and jQuery
polyfill can run in `old IE`
some things aren't quite to spec
f.ex. writing properties
setting pointer capture in old IE is problematic
so works on IE 6, 7, 8
RB: anyone from IBM here?
AB: no
SG: yeah, I want to talk to DoJo people
RB: yes, that would be good
SG: I will followup
with DoJo
RB: could argue that 2 separate production quality polyfills is
good
provided they give the same behaviour
<scribe> ACTION: barstow invite IBM to join Pointer Events WG
[recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Invite ibm to join pointer
events wg [on Arthur Barstow - due 2013-10-29].
AV: re Mozilla, there is a public build avialable that includes
most of PE
the touch-action is a WIP by other engineers
OP: yes, there are some patches
that need review
nothing is shipping yet
MB: an engineer has a private build
OP: we want to get touch-action implemented before landing the
patch
afaik, it is moving slowly
RB: this requires fundamental changes to the event model thus
everyone is being slow and careful
Review status of PR-324
AB: I think about 2/3 of PR324 has been reviewed so we need
people to commit to reviewing the remaining 8 files
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013OctDec/0019.html.
... need volunteers
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0019.html.
RB: I can do review of my files by next week
<mbrubeck>
[16]http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/45
[16] http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/45
<mbrubeck> has the initial division
AB:
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013OctDec/0019.html
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0019.html
RB: I'll take 1-5
SG: I'll take 6-8 (pointerLeave)
AB: can you do your review by next week Scott?
SG: yes
AV: we have been reviewing comments
and will start working on them this week or next
AB: great
AV: thanks for the comments
AB: great, thanks everyone
... anything else on testing?
AV: we are still working on touch-action
tests
Hope to send them to the group soon
We are also looking at Cathy's Test Assertion table
vis-a-vis the gaps
Want to encourage everyone to review the table
and look for gaps
and supply missing tests
maxTouchPoints on platforms that have less granular information
AB Rick submitted this comment on 10-Oct-2013
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013OctDec/0010.html
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013OctDec/0010.html
RB: during our Android impl of PE, we ran into this problem
get 1 of 5 states
so basically buckets of touch points
Can get ballpark type results like "at most 2" or "at most 4"
touch points
RB: need some reliability
f.ex. "definitely have at least 2 touch points"
We might need a note if the platform cannot give specific
results
MB: agree we need to do something
don't think maxTouchPoints is a good name for this
AV: seems more like a platform impl detail
rather than something we want to include in the spec
RB: but authors need to know about this
<sangwhan> But applications need to know how many touch points
they can use
RB: think the spec needs some clarify for these scenarios
AV: I need to talk with Jacob about this
<sangwhan> Otherwise every developer has to assume the worst
case scenario
AB: agree getting more input is good
do we capture an issue now?
AV: think we should discuss on the list first
AB: any objections to continue discussion on list and postpone
creating a formal CR Issue?
RB: no, I think that's fine
AV: this is some non-normative text we want to add?
RB: yes, I think so
[ Rick describes a scenario where this is problematic
]
MB: we could acknowledge this is a range
and then define a lower bound
and keeping maxTouchPoints defined as is
<rbyers> The main question is does maxTouchPoints return the
guaranteed maximum across all digitizers and platform-specific
ranges
<rbyers> I.e. can it be used by apps as an upper bound on the
size of data structures, etc.
AB: so, everyone, please provide feedback on Rick's initial
thread via the mail list
<rbyers> OR should it be used by apps to indicate when
additional UI (eg. zoom controls) are necessary
Apparent inconsistency between W3C Pointer Event spec and EMMA 1.1
spec;
AB: Steve Hickman submitted this comment on 30-Sep-2013
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2
013JulSep/0050.html
... we deferred discussion during the last meeting. I think I
am the only one to have replied and I added it the post CR
comment and issue tracking doc
[20]http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/CR-pointerevents-20130
509
... any comments, feedback?
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pointer-events/2013JulSep/0050.html
[20] http://www.w3.org/wiki/PointerEvents/CR-pointerevents-20130509
OP: I think EMMA spec should be changed
it is missing touch
don't think PE spec needs to be changed
RB: not sure how important this is
<sangwhan> Do any browser implementations actually implement
anything related to EMMA/MMI?
OP: I agree
AV: agree this isn't a high prio and think Art's response was
good
<sangwhan> I haven't seen one so far, so I personally think the
point is fubar
if there is no real interop problem, not sure we have to do
anything
OP: the MMI architecture is very different than what we are
doing
don't we should care much about this
RB: we have implementations of PE already shipping
so I think that trumps the EMMA work in progress
AB: draft Resolution: we do not consider PE and EMMA interop a
substantial issue until there is clear data to show otherwise
... any objections?
[ None ]
RESOLUTION: we do not consider PE and EMMA interop a
substantial issue until there is clear data to show otherwise
<scribe> ACTION: barstow update PE CR tracking doc re EMMA
comment to reflect 22-Oct-2013 Resolution [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Update pe cr tracking doc re
emma comment to reflect 22-oct-2013 resolution [on Arthur
Barstow - due 2013-10-29].
AoB
AB: anything else for today?
... we'll have our next meeting when we have a sufficient
agenda for a call.
<sangwhan> How about a plenary meeting for the CG during tpac?
AB: meeting adjourned
<rbyers> Sorry sangwhan - we just hung up. Last we talked, not
too many of us were planning on being at TPAC I think...
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: barstow invite IBM to join Pointer Events WG
[recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion01]
[NEW] ACTION: barstow update PE CR tracking doc re EMMA comment
to reflect 22-Oct-2013 Resolution [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/22-pointerevents-minutes.html#act
ion02]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2013 16:00:57 UTC